Found Deceased CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #109

[Momofthreeboys]

I disagree that it's evidence. We simply do not know.
There may well be very good reasons for 'expert' reports being late. Which 'expert' reports specifically are you referring to?

The argument is all spelled out in the civil case. It can be picked apart just like the prosecution AA gets picked apart and both are linked numerous times over the past several years.

 

[Momofthreeboys]

So, it wasn't an issue of whether they were experts or not? So the judge basically directly sanctioned the experts for being late with their reports and reclassified them as...lay persons?

Still have never heard of this. It's bizarre. Usually experts are treated in a certain way. Of course, it might not have been the experts' fault (it truly could be Stanley's fault - the experts had submitted reports and she didn't turn them over).

If it's in fact the case that Stanley did not have possession of those expert reports, then she was basically lying to the court and deserved the sanction. But it's still a really bizarre sanction (to de-expert the experts due to the fault of a DA). It's almost as if the judge wanted to make sure that none of the experts would ever consent to work for Chaffee County again, which is not in the interests of justice.

It's my understanding that judges have the ability to re-calendar almost anything, but then, most of my work is in another state. Still, looking at Denver, Boulder and CoSprings cases, I'd say that the judges are constantly allowing things to be rescheduled (for both sides). Barry did have a right to a speedy trial - and every one of the judge's statements about the experts should have referenced that. Maybe it's just poor judicial writing on the part of the judge (or illness or inexperience).

At any rate, it was dismissed without prejudice (which may have been the judge's overall goal, seeing what inexperience and disarray was happening with the Chaffee County prosecutor).

I fear that the Saguache County situation may not be much better and I am hoping that the State of Colorado will chip in to help. I wish I felt optimistic about that. I can understand if the judge simply threw his hands up and read the prosecution the riot act (but he didn't have to).

IMO.

I think the judge was happy for it to be dismissed. With the disarray of the prosecution it was absolutely the best outcome and opened the door for a second attempt.

 

[kittythehare]

The argument is all spelled out in the civil case. It can be picked apart just like the prosecution AA gets picked apart and both are linked numerous times over the past several years.

This has zero to do with the civil case, actually.

 

[10ofRods]

COVID or not, I'm not too sure that area would be booming with traffic. Think he could go unnoticed there most days of the week, IMO.

Edit to say: that's not to say I think he did it during the day time. Just don't think Moffat is too busy regardless of pandemics

Entire county has only 6000 people. Population of Moffat is 106.

So yeah, not very busy.

And the civil case has no evidence nor need for an AA - it's all based on the **complaint** of the plaintiff (Barry). The plaintiff is going to have to spell out in court (first via depositions - which should be starting soon).

 

[susiQ]

COVID or not, I'm not too sure that area would be booming with traffic. Think he could go unnoticed there most days of the week, IMO.

Edit to say: that's not to say I think he did it during the day time. Just don't think Moffat is too busy regardless of pandemics

I’m rusty on some details so this may be a dumb question, but here goes.

Is it at all possible BM left the home in daylight, say 7 pm in a borrowed vehicle or the RR, arrived at the intended burial site by 8 pm (sunset on May 10, 2020, give or take), digs the shallow grave (maybe 2-3 ft) and finishes up by 9pm and heads home?

I know some here have all the times of vehicle movement and telephone occurrences seared into their memory and this may be an impossible scenario but it just crossed my befuddled mind .

 

[10ofRods]

I’m rusty on some details so this may be a dumb question, but here goes.

Is it at all possible BM left the home in daylight, say 7 pm in a borrowed vehicle or the RR, arrived at the intended burial site by 8 pm (sunset on May 10, 2020, give or take), digs the shallow grave (maybe 2-3 ft) and finishes up by 9pm and heads home?

I know some here have all the times of vehicle movement and telephone occurrences seared into their memory and this may be an impossible scenario but it just crossed my befuddled mind .

Not at all impossible if he used a vehicle without GPS (of which I believe he at least had one). There's a blank spot in the timeline where almost anything could have happened - maybe some of our timeline experts will weigh in, but I don't think that's a dumb question at all.

 

[Lyanna]

The court, unlike us mere plebes at Websleuths, must look at BM as an innocent party though. Why would a court penalize the party who is following Colorado's discovery procedure and not the one who was disregarding it?

IMO, the D.A. caused this problem, not a judge.

I don't think they do see him as innocent - he's free because of technicalities, missed deadlines, not 100% following the rules. Judge Murphy found that the burden had been met, Barry was bound over for trial. I think the reason IE and DN parted ways was because IE was crafty yet again and encouraged SD to lawyer up with DN's hubby's law firm, causing the conflict of interest that landed Lama as judge. He was weak willed but that's jmo, wanted to retire and found the easiest way out the case by not allowing most of the prosecution witnesses. Prosecution were left with no choice to ensure Suzanne's case got a future conviction - they had to dismiss.
Were prosecution *advertiser censored* hot? No. But they gathered enough to show Barry as a murderer. They defended Suzanne enough to show he killed her, when and why he killed her and when he had opportunity to dispose of her physical remains. There's 131 pages of it.

My own plebeian opinion

 

[Error505]

Lama

Judge Ramsey Lama Resignation Letter

Click here to view this item from https://gazette.com.

gazette.com

Thank goodness Lama’s gone! I pray there is Justice somewhere in Colorado’s courts! MOO

 

[kittythehare]

Thank goodness Lama’s gone! I pray there is Justice somewhere in Colorado’s courts! MOO

well, Dan May was astonished by the decision so I doubt he is alone.

They need to speak up now.

Suzanne is still getting kicked around.

 

[kittythehare]

The court, unlike us mere plebes at Websleuths, must look at BM as an innocent party though. Why would a court penalize the party who is following Colorado's discovery procedure and not the one who was disregarding it?

IMO, the D.A. caused this problem, not a judge.

The judge made the decision.
Then he retired.
Because he is sick.

 

[fcavanaugh]

DBM

 

[GoJacks]

I’m rusty on some details so this may be a dumb question, but here goes.

Is it at all possible BM left the home in daylight, say 7 pm in a borrowed vehicle or the RR, arrived at the intended burial site by 8 pm (sunset on May 10, 2020, give or take), digs the shallow grave (maybe 2-3 ft) and finishes up by 9pm and heads home?

I know some here have all the times of vehicle movement and telephone occurrences seared into their memory and this may be an impossible scenario but it just crossed my befuddled mind .

I think it's possible,

There's huge gaps in the timeline for the AA and also some of it is poorly worded (imo). But from what I gather -

His phone is basically on airplane most of the day after 2:30pm. It comes out of it at 10pm. ~

But then it says something like from 10-432am~ it shuts off maybe? This is the weird wording (imo): because sentence after says his display turns on at 3:56am.

 

[debrat007]

To me it's pretty clear. The prosecution's case was not ready to go to trial. They missed multiple deadlines to produce the expert reports, even after being warned the final time that they wouldn't get another extension. That's not a sign of a team that was organized and on top of everything in the run up to trial.

They absolutely could have appealed the judge's sanctions and might very well have gotten them reduced, but they chose instead to voluntarily dismiss the case. Probably because they knew that even if they won the appeal, they weren't prepared to go to trial and it was going to be a disaster.

It may seem bad to all of us that it didn’t move forward at the time but it appears to be a GodWink. It’s given everyone more time to get granular on their facts, evidence, timelines and now there is Suzanne’s body. I am just wracked with grief though (as I read thru the AA) that Suzanne experienced the fear of being hunted by her own husband and knowing he was capable of killing her.

 

[debrat007]

DBM

Brilliant! Well stated and with the passion Suzanne deserves.

 

[AugustWest]

The judge made the decision.
Then he retired.
Because he is sick.

I'm not sure I follow.

This is how I see the discovery violation issue:

Party X failed to timely disclose "underlying facts or data supporting the opinion in that particular case of an expert endorsed as a witness" (Rule 16 Colo Crim Pro).

Judge allows Party X more time to disclose same, as Rule 16 allows he/she to do so.

Party X fails a second time to follow above discovery rule.

Judge issues sanctions and strikes the witness(es), as Rule 16 advises a judge to do.

It's that simple. No outside facts, no is Party Y guilty/innocent (which, btw, he isn't imo). One party failed to follow the rules. The consequence is what we have now, regrettably.

 

[Lyanna]

It may seem bad to all of us that it didn’t move forward at the time but it appears to be a GodWink. It’s given everyone more time to get granular on their facts, evidence, timelines and now there is Suzanne’s body. I am just wracked with grief though (as I read thru the AA) that Suzanne experienced the fear of being hunted by her own husband and knowing he was capable of killing her.

Makes me wonder why she would save her "list" on her phone, was it a "just in case anything happens to me" thought?
She did say she didn't feel safe alone with him..

Moo

 

[Lyanna]

DBM

Why did you delete?
Couldn't agree more and loved what you said x

Moo

 

[Seattle1]

I disagree that it's evidence. We simply do not know.
There may well be very good reasons for 'expert' reports being late. Which 'expert' reports specifically are you referring to?

A trial by ambush is what happens when one side or another in a trial is caught by surprise by some unexpected or unknown factor. Usually, it is a piece of evidence or a witness that has been concealed from the opposing side in a court case, so as to ensure that there is little to no chance of coming up with an adequate defense.

Sanctions for late expert witness reports were truly when I lost all respect for Lama. What we had here was technically an incomplete report where a revised page of inconsequential data was filed one day late (not late per Statute), and where seeking and imposing a penalty defied the true purpose of "discovery" i.e., to prevent surprise information, and/or trial by ambush. MOO, having actually read the State's response to the defense Motions for sanctions where Lama's Order simply accepted IE's misrepresentation of the facts.

More recently, I provided the example of an expert witness report in the Letecia Stauch trial that was not produced until 3 days before they were called as a witness--yet allowed to testify sans sanctions. Governed by the very same Colorado Rule 16, no sanctions were imposed which can be attributed to the Court and professionals on each side who failed to claim injury to a party. MOO

Discovery and Procedure Before Trial, Colo. R. Crim. P. 16
In no case shall such disclosure be less than 35 days before trial for a felony trial, or 7 days before trial for a non-felony trial, except for good cause .​

 

[O.Incandenza]

It may seem bad to all of us that it didn’t move forward at the time but it appears to be a GodWink. It’s given everyone more time to get granular on their facts, evidence, timelines and now there is Suzanne’s body. I am just wracked with grief though (as I read thru the AA) that Suzanne experienced the fear of being hunted by her own husband and knowing he was capable of killing her.

Yeah, I think it will likely work out for the best in the long run. Finding Suzanne will help immensely. Fresh eyes on the case, more time to prepare and potentially a more experienced prosecutor will also help. Even if LS's office is the one to retry the case, hopefully the first attempt and the other experience they've gained in the last few years will help them.

 

[kittythehare]

I'm not sure I follow.

This is how I see the discovery violation issue:

Party X failed to timely disclose "underlying facts or data supporting the opinion in that particular case of an expert endorsed as a witness" (Rule 16 Colo Crim Pro).

Judge allows Party X more time to disclose same, as Rule 16 allows he/she to do so.

Party X fails a second time to follow above discovery rule.

Judge issues sanctions and strikes the witness(es), as Rule 16 advises a judge to do.

It's that simple. No outside facts, no is Party Y guilty/innocent (which, btw, he isn't imo). One party failed to follow the rules. The consequence is what we have now, regrettably.

Found Deceased - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, Chaffee Co, 10 May 2020 *Case dismissed w/o prejudice* #109

I disagree that it's evidence. We simply do not know. There may well be very good reasons for 'expert' reports being late. Which 'expert' reports specifically are you referring to? The argument is all spelled out in the civil case. It can be picked apart just like the prosecution AA gets...

www.websleuths.com

It's not simple at all, actually.